Skip to content

GHSA-8372-7vhw-cm6q CVE-2026-43528

OpenClaw: config.get redaction bypass through sourceConfig and runtimeConfig aliases

Medium npm
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.55% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-212 Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer
Fix
2026.4.14
Upgrade openclaw to this version or later

Description

Summary

config.get redaction bypass through sourceConfig and runtimeConfig aliases.

Affected Packages / Versions

  • Package: openclaw
  • Ecosystem: npm
  • Affected versions: < 2026.4.14
  • Patched versions: >= 2026.4.14

Impact

An authenticated gateway client with config read access could receive unredacted secrets through alias fields that survived redaction, including provider API keys, gateway auth material, and channel credentials.

Technical Details

The fix explicitly overwrites sourceConfig and runtimeConfig with the same redacted copies used for resolved and config, including the invalid-snapshot branch. Tests now cover both alias fields.

Fix

The issue was fixed in #66030. The first stable tag containing the fix is v2026.4.14, and openclaw@2026.4.14 includes the fix.

Fix Commit(s)

  • 86734ef93a2f25063371b04f1946eb300548acd4
  • PR: #66030

Release Process Note

Users should upgrade to openclaw 2026.4.14 or newer. The latest npm release, 2026.4.14, already includes the fix.

Credits

Thanks to @zsxsoft, with sponsorship from @KeenSecurityLab and @qclawer for reporting this issue.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
openclaw
< 2026.4.14
2026.4.14

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

openclaw npm → 2026.4.14

npm
npm install openclaw@2026.4.14
yarn
yarn add openclaw@2026.4.14
pnpm
pnpm add openclaw@2026.4.14

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 6.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-212: Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer

The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the resource available to unauthorized actors.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify which information should be regarded as private or sensitive, and require that the product offers functionality that allows the user to cleanse the sensitive information from the resource before it is published or exported to other parties.
  • Architecture and Design: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
  • Implementation, Operation: Some tools can automatically analyze documents to redact, strip, or "sanitize" private information, although some human review might be necessary. Tools may vary in terms of which document formats can be processed. When calling an external program to automatically generate or convert documents, invoke the program with any available options that avoid generating sensitive metadata. Some formats have well-defined fields that could contain private data, such as Exchangeable image file format (Exif), which can contain potentially sensitive metadata such as geolocation, date, and time [REF-1515] [REF-1516].
  • Implementation: Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
  • Implementation: Avoid errors related to improper resource shutdown or release (CWE-404), which may leave the sensitive data within the resource if it is in an incomplete state.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-3x84-qq85-fj65
OpenClaw: Browser CDP discovery could accept blocked WebSocket URLs
High Also affects openclaw
GHSA-9c3v-684m-579c
OpenClaw MCP SSE redirects could forward Authorization headers
Medium Also affects openclaw
GHSA-f397-5vjw-v2c2
OpenClaw: Shell inline-command parsing could miss an allowlist check
High Also affects openclaw
GHSA-rx78-29qr-5hq8
OpenClaw: Workspace-derived service PATH could influence trash command selection
High Also affects openclaw
GHSA-ccwh-wwpp-6wg5
OpenClaw: Host environment sanitizer missed two Node.js control variables
High Also affects openclaw
GHSA-985f-72mj-8gf7
OpenClaw: Tool group policy callers could accept unvalidated group IDs
Medium Also affects openclaw
GHSA-9v8j-9c9g-w66c
OpenClaw: Bootstrap token replay could widen pending pairing scopes
Medium Also affects openclaw
GHSA-c226-q6fx-6j6c
OpenClaw: macOS Swift exec allowlist missed combined POSIX inline flags
Medium Also affects openclaw
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor